Citation Nr: 20026026 Decision Date: 04/15/20 Archive Date: 04/15/20 DOCKET NO. 15-04 150A DATE: April 15, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for obstructive pulmonary disease (claimed as lung problems) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1958 to March 1979. 1. Entitlement to service connection for obstructive pulmonary disease (claimed as lung problems) is remanded. The Veteran is seeking entitlement to service connection for obstructive pulmonary disease (claimed as lung problems) as a result of in-service exposure to asbestos. In October 2019, the Board remanded this issue in order to obtain a VA medical opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed lung problems. Specifically, it was noted that the claims file contained several medical opinions regarding this matter, to include opinions from Dr. Gerboth in December 2010, March 2014, June 2017, and July 2019; from Dr. Baker in August 2019; from Dr. Glasow in August 2018; and from a VA examiner in April 2014. The Board noted in the remand that Dr. Gerboth varied in his opinions as to whether the Veteran had a disability related to asbestos exposure; Dr. Glasgow and Dr. Baker failed to discuss the Veteran’s extensive tobacco use history; and the April 2014 VA examiner did not have access to the x-rays and computed tomography (CT) scans taken beyond 2014 and identified by the private physicians. As such, a new VA examination was requested on this matter. In December 2019, a VA examiner determined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted that the Veteran was exposed to asbestos during his 21 years in the military but was exposed to cigarette smoke daily for 30 years or more. The examiner found that the Veteran’s COPD and bacterial bronchitis are less likely than not incurred in or caused by the Veteran’s military service, to specifically include in-service exposure to asbestos. This issue was remanded by the Board in order to give a VA examiner the opportunity to provide an opinion on the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed lung problems with access to the x-rays and CT scans taken beyond 2014 and identified by the private physicians. However, it does not appear that the December 2019 VA opinion referenced or discussed all of the more recent x-rays or CT scans identified by the private physicians. As such, an addendum opinion is required. 2. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. As the issue of entitlement to TDIU can be impacted by resolution of the Veteran’s obstructive pulmonary disease (claimed as lung problems) claim being remanded, the Board finds that the issue of entitlement to TDIU must be deferred, as it is inextricably intertwined with the issue being remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Arrange for the Veteran’s claims folder to be returned to the VA examiner who conducted the December 2019 VA respiratory examination. After reviewing the file, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed respiratory or lung condition, to include COPD and bacterial bronchitis, was incurred in, or caused or aggravated by, the Veteran’s military service, to specifically include in-service exposure to asbestos. In rendering any opinions, the VA examiner should consider and discuss the more recent chest x-rays and CT scans taken beyond 2014 and identified by the private physicians, to specifically include the 2010, 2012, and 2017 chest CT scans and the 2019 chest x-ray. See medical records in file with receipt date of 11/12/19 and 12/19/19. A complete rationale for all opinions should be provided. If the December 2019 VA examiner is unavailable, have an appropriate examiner review the Veteran’s claims file and provide the above-requested opinion. If further examination is needed, such should be provided. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Durham, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.